United States v. Michael Laursen
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1592
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012, Michael Laursen (45) had a sexual relationship with J.B., who was 16; investigators later found nude "selfie" photos of them on J.B.’s laptop and on a digital camera memory card seized from Laursen’s belongings.
- J.B. testified she and Laursen took sexually explicit photographs together; she said she did not like doing so, deleted some images at his request, and at times received drugs and housing from him.
- Laursen was charged with production (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and possession (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)) of child pornography; federal jurisdiction was supported by the fact that storage media had traveled in interstate/foreign commerce.
- At a bench trial the district court found J.B. credible, concluded Laursen knowingly "used" J.B. to produce sexually explicit images, and convicted him; he received 15 years for production and 10 years for possession.
- On appeal Laursen argued (1) insufficient evidence that he "used" J.B. to produce images, (2) various constitutional challenges (vagueness, overbreadth, Tenth Amendment, Commerce Clause), and (3) erroneous evidentiary rulings restricting cross‑examination and excluding a proffered photo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether Laursen "used" a minor to produce sexually explicit images under § 2251(a) | Govt: evidence showed Laursen directed and induced J.B. to take explicit photos and knew her age | Laursen: no coercion; he did not “use” her — photos were consensual selfies and he may not be the man pictured | Affirmed: testimony that Laursen told J.B. to take pictures, she disliked it, deleted images at his request, and his admissions supported finding he "used" her to produce images |
| Overbreadth (1st/Privacy) | Govt: child pornography prohibition is not protected speech; protecting minors is compelling | Laursen: statute reaches consensual intimate conduct (privacy interest) | Rejected: child pornography is unprotected; statute’s legitimate reach dominates alleged private conduct |
| Vagueness (Due Process) | Govt: statute provides fair notice of prohibited conduct | Laursen: statutory terms (e.g., "use") are unclear | Rejected: ordinary persons would understand §§ 2251/2252A prohibit using a minor to produce or possess child porn |
| Federalism / Scope (Tenth/Commerce) | Govt: Congress may regulate child pornography and interstate nexus exists | Laursen: state law allowed the sexual relationship; federal law intrudes on state authority and exceeds Commerce Clause | Rejected: Bond distinguished; child porn federalization upheld by Supreme Court and circuits; Congress rationally regulated interstate effects of child porn |
| Evidentiary rulings | Govt: Rule 412 limits admissibility of victim’s sexual history; court allowed relevant questioning | Laursen: exclusion of testimony about J.B.’s other relationships and exclusion of a photo of his body hindered defense | Rejected: exclusion consistent with Rule 412 and district court discretion; any error was harmless given corroborating evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (Sup. Ct.) (child pornography is unprotected speech and government has compelling interest in protecting children)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (Sup. Ct.) (statute must give fair notice; upholds child‑pornography statute against vagueness/First Amendment facial challenge)
- United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679 (9th Cir.) ("use" element and requirement of active or coercive conduct analyzed as factual question)
- United States v. Flores, 729 F.3d 910 (9th Cir.) (statutory interpretation principles; noscitur a sociis)
- United States v. Wright, 774 F.3d 1085 (6th Cir.) (broad interpretation: photographing a minor to create pornography satisfies "use")
- United States v. Fadl, 498 F.3d 862 (8th Cir.) (photographing a minor satisfies "use" absent solicitation/enticement)
- United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623 (9th Cir.) (Congress may regulate intrastate production/possession of child pornography as affecting interstate commerce)